Lack of Law in the FAA
#21
Article 1 Sec 8 coupled with the 9th and 10th Amendments. Although a legitimate argument could be made that flying falls under admiralty law.
Regardless though, the Constitution doesn't give the federal government the authority to regulate travel in the way that it does.
Regardless though, the Constitution doesn't give the federal government the authority to regulate travel in the way that it does.
So if the FAA is unconstitutional, as you allege, why hasn't this been taken up by the courts?
Surely your interpretation would stand up in a SC challenge, right?
#22
I might find some agreement with that position, philosophically, BUT we have to live in the REAL WORLD. What color is the sky in Sonic Flyer land?
GF
GF
#24
The Commerce Clause is not an expansive power delegated to the federal government. It is actually a lot more humble than people have construed it to be. The Commerce Clause, when it was written, was designed to "make commerce regular" in other words turning all of the states in to a free trade zone so that tariffs couldn't be imposed on people or goods going from Virginia to New Hampshire for instance.
The word "regulate" at the time meant "to make regular" although that meaning is lost today.
The word "regulate" at the time meant "to make regular" although that meaning is lost today.
#25
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Dec 2015
Posts: 120
Thanks for your responses. I tend to agree with SonicFlyer and disagree with Rick..7777.
It's my understanding that as humans we are given inalienable rights such as the right to travel. Aviation falls within traveling. Licensing, medicals, etc. are generally used for commercial endeavors because banks and insurance companies rule the world. You would present an insurance liability if you commercially flew an airplane without a licensed pilot (for example).
My argument is that in order to serve in a Federal Administration, you are usually required to swear an oath to the Constitution and the Constitution requires due process. I would imagine that due process would therefore, need to be followed in Administrative agencies. Correct? It appears that administrations like the FAA do things arbitrarily, which would be a violation of oath.
With that being said, no one has given me any examples of what past pilots have done in the past in regards to remedy, besides a lawsuit.
It's my understanding that as humans we are given inalienable rights such as the right to travel. Aviation falls within traveling. Licensing, medicals, etc. are generally used for commercial endeavors because banks and insurance companies rule the world. You would present an insurance liability if you commercially flew an airplane without a licensed pilot (for example).
My argument is that in order to serve in a Federal Administration, you are usually required to swear an oath to the Constitution and the Constitution requires due process. I would imagine that due process would therefore, need to be followed in Administrative agencies. Correct? It appears that administrations like the FAA do things arbitrarily, which would be a violation of oath.
With that being said, no one has given me any examples of what past pilots have done in the past in regards to remedy, besides a lawsuit.
#26
Disinterested Third Party
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,023
My argument is that in order to serve in a Federal Administration, you are usually required to swear an oath to the Constitution and the Constitution requires due process. I would imagine that due process would therefore, need to be followed in Administrative agencies. Correct? It appears that administrations like the FAA do things arbitrarily, which would be a violation of oath.
Where is this "oath" that FAA personnel must "swear?" Is this secretly done on a stack of bibles, perhaps under a windsock at night, near an unlit runway?
Due process?
In those several years, you never learned what administrative law is? Do you not understand the regulation?
Do you not know the basis behind the FAA's authority, or mission?
Do you know what an act of congress is?
"Violations of oath?" Did you actually read that somewhere, or just make that up?
The FAA "makes things up arbitrarily?" Really? Do you have any idea of the extent of the rule making process? Have you never taken the time to comment on a notice of proposed rule making? Every one is published for public comment in the Federal Register, and routinely the FAA crafts regulatory changes largely on industry and individual input. In fact, when the final rule is published, it includes a thorough explanation of the purpose and reason behind the regulation, the input from all concerned parties, and the reasons that the regulation has been established in consideration of that input.
As for the issue of the FAA undertaking enforcement action, there is a clear process set up and spelled out by the Administrator regarding what is done and the steps taken to appeal it. There's nothing arbitrary about it.
If you're concerned with recouping income loss following FAA enforcement action, you can certain try; get a good attorney and have a lot of money. It's your right to tilt at windmills. Such efforts come with no guarantee.
And as others have noted, it is a privilege. NOT a right. Your appeal for certificate action is to neither a civil court nor a criminal one, but to an Administrative Law Judge.
#27
Actually it's not flawed, it is historical. I've studied law and history as a serious hobby for about 10 years.
No because since the late 1800s and early 1900s the lawyers in this country are (incorrectly) trained to base everything on precedent, or stare decisis as opposed to the actual meaning of the original written text (which is the proper way).
This means that if an incorrect or faulty ruling is made it will likely stay there forever unless the SCOTUS overturns it... including if the SCOTUS made the ruling. But they are highly unlikely to rule against themselves.
This means that if an incorrect or faulty ruling is made it will likely stay there forever unless the SCOTUS overturns it... including if the SCOTUS made the ruling. But they are highly unlikely to rule against themselves.
#28
Disinterested Third Party
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,023
You know, of course, that there are three sources for understanding the regulation, correct? One is the regulation itself. Another is FAA Chief Legal Counsel letters of interpretation (also given as legal opinions). Another, and perhaps the best for gaining a more indepth understanding of the meaning AND intent of the regulation, is the Federal Register Preamble to the publishing of the final rule when a regulation is made or changed.
While it's of interest and sometimes useful to review appeal cases of enforcement action, those are not binding on FAA action, nor do they dictate the outcome of subsequent enforcement action or appeal.
Sounds like you've been studying the wrong law, if you have questions regarding the FAA.
You may be barking up the wrong tree.
#29
And, when the administrative appeals are finished, the next level of appeal is the US Court of Appeals where, for the most part, they die.
If the two “armchair lawyers” took one, just ONE, business law course; you two would not be displaying ignorance and arrogance here. Administrative Law is a pretty basic undergrade business course. Here’s a start:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit...nistrative_law
GF
If the two “armchair lawyers” took one, just ONE, business law course; you two would not be displaying ignorance and arrogance here. Administrative Law is a pretty basic undergrade business course. Here’s a start:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit...nistrative_law
GF
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
AUS_ATC
Hangar Talk
0
03-08-2006 06:56 PM